All I see is TRIM!!!!!!!
 

For me...when I see older cards graded 10's...all I see are TRIM/ALTERATIONS. I just can't unsee what looks like TRIM to me.

Opinions on this 1962 babe ruth special??

graded
 

sorry doesn't matter what we think ---a PSA 10's a 10?

I know things have been sketchy in the past, but based on serial numbers, this is a newly graded card (sometime in 2022). I have to believe that under the current scrutiny, graders are under enormous pressure to measure cards precisely.

After all, there are a lot more “trimmed” and “doesn’t meet minimum size” coming back from third party graders, at least PSA and SGC.

Having said that though, I do agree that I’ve never seen so many mint and gem mint vintage cards ever before — certainly none when I was collecting back in the 1980s and early 1990s BEFORE cards were graded and slabbed….

^^THIS^^ Also I highly doubt when it was graded has anything to do with it being altered or not. Altering cards has been a big thing for many decades.

+1 Agree Well Said

Look at this beauty with a recent cert number. It’s a fake!! If PSA, with all the scrutiny, cannot identify fakes, then I am dubious they can determine proper measurements.

As for whether the card in the initial thread is trimmed, just like PSA, I have no idea

Photos are not evidence. Before and after photos are not evidence. That a submitter is a known notorious card doctor is not evidence. Nothing is evidence. If you have a question, ask for a review, and PSA in its sole discretion will decide.

to paraphrase a famous umpire
 

It ain't nothing until I call it it. substitute TPA for umpire for the modern version.

to misquote Otto Bismark
 

How long ere we lose the illusion that TPA was created to grade cards impartially and without prejudice for the benefit of the average hobby buyer

"Average hobby buyer?" Those days are long gone. There is some functionality for the average Joe, but the material benefits go to a select subgroup. I think everyone in the hobby at any real level acknowledged that long ago.

As I like to say, all submitters are equal. Some are more equal than others.

It's apples to oranges, however it's still all fruit. Altering was just as common or more so in the 80's and more. It's just done much better now.

Whether it was the commonplace action of dealers themselves trimming cards to make them more presentable or grabbing a sharpie to clean up the edges of a 71' Topps, it was rampant. The issue is, just like most things, they got a hell of a lot better at at. People get frustrated because it's so good that often the only way they know is by comparing an old scan of the same card. A process that was impossible a short while ago.

I have no solutions to solve it all and the unfortunate fact is that as time progresses this is only getting worse...no matter the effort. Technology will likely be able to create perfect replicas in 20 years and what will happen to collectables in that world?

Not sure what to say other than "buckle in, it's going to be a bumpy ride".

Most likely submitted to PSA by someone with favorable "status". The top 2 corners were not even squared up, as they are noticeably curved. And the bottom 2 corners show touches of wear that in no way indicate a Gem Mint "10".

Definitely inferior to thousands of PSA 8s and 9s circulating out there. I guess it's simply too much to ask them for consistency.

I don't believe that for a second. They've never measured "precisely", and are not going to start now. How many times has the same card been at various points a Minsize, sent back as trimmed, AND resided in a PSA 6 holder? This kind of thing in the past and the revenue that PSA generates from people continuing to crack and resub is not something they are going to give up in the name of being more accurate. The large majority of their customer base has proven time and time again that they simply don't care, as long as their cards eventually make it into nice, numbered holders.

It's really quite simple, actually. Pictured on the left is the card a 'regular' collector sent in to be graded. On the right is the card a 'preferred' submitter sent in...

Attachment 567848Attachment 567847

George Orwell would be proud.

An interesting thing is that T.S. Eliot, who was working for a publisher at the time, rejected Animal Farm.

Eliot is one of my favorite poets and Orwell one of my favorite modern prose writers. I never knew this.

I can't say for sure, but my lunch money is on 'trimmed' for the OP's question.

Funny how we can spot a trimmed/altered/fake card on a computer screen from a two-dimensional photo/scan but the TPGs have a hard time doing it with the actual card in hand. Something is rotten here.

lol

+1

Anybody want to bet that the ratio of the following is very lopsided?

High graded (razor sharp corners) that are "undersized"

VS

High graded (razor sharp corners) that are "oversized"


I continue to read posters saying that card sizes vary. I get that, but why is it that TPGs have probably graded MORE undersized cards with razor sharp corners than oversized cards?

Are we to believe that if card sizes do vary, that most of the cards will be "undersized" than "oversized"? Why is it that there are more "undersized" cards than "oversized" cards if we are to believe that cards vary in size?

Take a stack of just about ANY year card from the 50s going forward (heck, I'd even go back to Playballs or earlier) and I bet MOST will all be about the same size (within 1/32" or tighter).

How many different size holders does PSA have for Topps cards 1957 and later? I'm going to guess there's probably a basic standard holder for those cards and if you look at many of the cards with razor sharp corners, there's a bit more room between the plastic indents that hold the card in place.

It's trimmed. Cards in the 1960s were not laser cut; they have some minor rough cut if they're natural.

to me a 6-7 is a vintage mint pack pulled card, anything over is suspect lol no cards come from a wrapped pack with out flaws.

Fred, its simple. If you have a random assortment of cards in a stack, the oversized cards will get the most wear and protect the undersized cards from having their razor sharp corners worn down.

Now doesn't that explain everything?? ;)

Considering how irregular sized 1955 Bowman is, I don't know if I'd ever be willing to pay a premium for a high-end version of one.

I low-key feel some of the variability comes from decades of trimming hiding out in an already terribly irregular cut set.

That is because there are less oversized cards due to the fact they have been trimmed down.

As I have mentioned, this could be a 9 in the wrong hands!@

I put that set together a few years ago. What I noticed was the height was always exactly thew same but the length varied greatly. It took me a few Willie Mays cards to find one that wasn't extremely short with a couple of them being obviously trimmed.

When I saw that title I thought this might be something eise...

I think Pete just likes to say "TRIM".

https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi...tthead%202.gif

This is common with a lot of the Topps sets too. Most of them measure pretty much the exact same in the narrow direction (L/R for a standard card, and T/B for a horizontal issue), but they can vary by upwards of an entire 1/4" in the long direction. A card that is trimmed narrow is often easy to identify because of this. But a card that is trimmed short could easily never be detected if it was tall to begin with. I think there are likely millions of trimmed cards in slabs.

Would agree.

Just a general comment on the topic of trimming...Size is not what graders are supposed to rely on for determining if a card has been trimmed. Looking at the edges and consistency of the cuts are factors which would more likely than not determine if a card has been trimmed.

Adam,

My first thought also. A little part of my brain is also still in the adolescent teenage gutter. I guess those of us who grew up in the 70's know that slang.

This is absolutely correct. Measurements help, but the look and feel typically give it away prior to measuring.

it might have been 48 hours...eddie murphy...the first time I heard the term "trim?"

That's true to a certain extent, but there are also a lot of slabbed cards out there that you can tell with absolute certainty that they have been trimmed simply by the size alone. If a card measures within spec, it measures within spec. And I would guess that the majority of trimmed cards are probably still within spec. But once a card gets too small, it simply has to have been trimmed, particularly for L/R cuts on vintage Topps cards.

To me, here’s the bottom line: there are cards that are centered, have nice edges, and generally sharp corners.

I can’t tell if a card is trimmed or not.

So while it may not be a 100% perfect solution, I will inevitably place my trust in PSA or SGC that they are better able to detect alterations to the card than I could if the card is raw.

I don’t know what else to say….

which strikes me as odd considering how little trimming of the area in question was going on in that era...

I see more trim...memory lane. top/bottom borders look guilty to me...maybe all 4? But hey...it's in a slab

I don't believe anything above a 6 nowadays Pete, nor would I want anything above that in my collection.

it's gonna come out someday...in a memoir...or autobiography of a dealer/trimmer...the majority of high grade cards like over 90% are altered.

I can see the book title now;
To quote the great John Lennon:

"I have blisters on my fingers, memoirs of a card trimmer"

I don’t think it matters when the card was graded. Since the first card PSA has ever graded, they have shown they are incapable of consistently spotting alterations.

That was Ringo!

This is a very good point. Especially considering how many 6-7 slabbed cards today would have been considered "mint" no questions asked in the mid-1980's and earlier.

The scrutiny applied to grade a vintage card an 8 or higher today would have been seen as unrealistic only a few decades ago. To me this is a huge part of the consistency problem with third party grading. They don't change the written standards, but they bump up the unsaid subjective needle to where today's 4 is yesterday's 5 or 6, and get away with it.

I stand corrected, thank you.

I said the exact same thing about 3 years ago on a Facebook Group Called Tobacco Row...they HATED IT AND CALLED ME A FEAR MUNGER....sadly I think many know it’s true but couldn’t accept it.

I have no doubt that some higher grade cards are trimmed and the TPGs miss them at times. I don't think more than 90% and would contend that it's far, far less than that. My opinion and it clearly differs from yours.

Your recollection of that time frame and mine aren't the same as it relates to Tobacco Row. Simply, I disagree with your assessment on how your comments were received. You and a few others decided that every post being made or commented on had to be about trimming cards and how the hobby was going to hell. After several dozen of those exact comments it gets old. Just because people call you on it doesn't mean we didn't agree with the concept that people trim cards, it's an issue and it stinks. Some of us can know that's a thing yet focus on more positive aspects of the hobby as well. Getting beaten over the head with it is unnecessary and my guess is when someone called you on it, you left the group and left it with the above opinion. What I would've (and am) told (telling) you is no issue with bringing up a point like that but no need to bring it up daily for weeks in every post. It's just annoying. I doubt I'm the only person that felt that way at the time and nothing's changed. We can focus on the good of the hobby while acknowledging there are aspects of it that aren't great.

My take on those posts back then is that you were 100% fear mongering. You were thinking (and maybe still do) that the sky is falling or will fall in the tobacco market. And while you may think we hated what you said, speaking for myself, I didn't like it because of the frequency of you and others saying it. It was annoying. I want to talk about all aspects of the hobby and not get beaten over the head about only the bad things. That's what was happening then.

..and I do collect those types of cards and I completely disagree that more than 9 out of 10 of them have been altered. I'm cool if you don't agree with me and I can assure you I won't beat you over the head with my opinion. I'd appreciate the same in kind..

Troy Rambo

Yikes that Cobb 8

Troy, thanks for the dialogue. My intention was not to be annoying but to warn newer collectors of my opinion on slabbed high end tobacco cards.

I have collected cards for over 30+ years. I firmly believe that most high end slabbed t206 cards are in an altered state. Look at blowout and other sites, they point out before and after pictures over and over again. It has been going on and will continue to go on. That is my belief.

The overwhelming majority of high grade vintage cards are altered, without question. Marshal Fogel's entire collection, just about, has been trimmed or was cut from a sheet. His MBA black diamond 52T Mantle PSA 10 is almost certainly sheet cut. Same with Nat Turner's high grade vintage collection. Anyone swimming in those waters cannot avoid them. The submissions from the early days, in particular, at PSA were loaded with trimmers. They were the early adopters that helped to build the PSA brand. There's no such thing as a "truly" gem mint vintage card.